I was having a conversation with a random dude who knew was talking about String Theory, about somthing I understood but i did not knew the term of it, like i knew what he was saying, i know stuff about quantum theory and also about dimentions and levels of reality which string theory is sort of about.

, as i had not stuck that name my head as of anything relevant,

but i felt i did understood what he was talking about i was not familiar with the term string theory, so i went home and looked it up on Wikipedia, i did not read all of it but it is very interesting, and its basis is quite appealing in how to understand the univese and reality in how we perseve it,

It also helps as a tool to connect the rules of nature, quantum theories, relativisme and the expation or withdrawel of the universe. I have a feeling it is sort of aiming for a grand understanding of things around us and our perseption of it.

Eggs can exist in all time periods and alternate dimensions. However, their charateristics change depending on their location. In our existence eggs are food and contain DNA to produce more of the host lifeform. In alternate realities, eggs can only perform complex mathematical computations without the needs to raise a garden.

I like physics and I'm quite familiar with String Theory (not the technical formulations but the concepts yes) but I don't understand what are you asking.

String Theory sounded very promising in the beginning but a lot of people have been working on it for over 30 years and the more work is done the less it seems that it points in the right direction. It's time that somebody starts exploring other paths because String Theory seems to be a dead end, some nice mathematical coincidences and relationships but without any relevance to the physical world.

I don't think it's a "Theory of Everything", but it's really interesting to read about and watch on things like Nova.

I actually think it's really important for people to spend time considering something like this as much as they can. At least to watch something about it and be exposed to it. It really forces you to evaluate what you're doing. Broadening your awareness like that breaks you from routine and can put things into perspective.

Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).

Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.

Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).

Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.

Exactly. It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.

It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.

That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.

I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.

It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.

That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.

I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.

Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.

Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.

I believe in a) preferably what I can understand, or otherwise at least in b) what I can perceive as 'objectively true' even if I don't understand it (take quantum mechanics).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum